Squires v. State
| Decision Date | 24 April 1900 |
| Citation | 27 So. 864,42 Fla. 251 |
| Parties | SQUIRES v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to circuit court, Putnam county; William A. Hocker, Judge.
Benjamin F. Squires was convicted of larceny, and brings error. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a motion for change of venue in a criminal case, based upon the ground that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county, is supported only by the defendant's affidavit, an appellate court will not reverse the ruling denying such motion, in the absence of some showing that defendant was prevented from securing corroborative evidence by hostile public sentiment.
2. Where a defendant in a criminal prosecution testified as a witness in his own behalf, the state has the right, on cross-examination, to interrogate him as to whether he has previously been convicted of a criminal offense.
3. Evidence examined, and found sufficient to support the verdict.
COUNSEL Fowler & Fowler, for plaintiff in error.
William B. Lamar, Atty. Gen., for the State.
At the fall term, 1899, of the circuit court of Putnam county plaintiff in error was tried and convicted upon an indictment found at that term, charging him with larceny. From the sentence imposed, this writ of error is taken.
I. The first assignment of error questions the propriety of the ruling of the circuit court denying the motion of plaintiff in error for a change of venue. That motion was based upon the ground that public sentiment in Putnam county was such that he could not secure a fair and impartial trial. The only evidence of the existence of the facts alleged as grounds to change the venue consists of the uncorroborated affidavit of the plaintiff in error, presented with the motion, and no showing was made that he was prevented from securing corroborative evidence by hostile public sentiment. Under these circumstances, we are not authorized to interfere with the ruling denying the motion. Shiver v. State, 41 Fla ----, 27 So. 36.
II. The defendant was sworn as a witness in his own behalf. On cross-examination he was asked by the state attorney 'Have you been convicted of larceny?' This question was objected to upon two grounds: First, because it was not properly in cross, as nothing had been asked the witness on direct examination pertaining to his former conviction of larceny; second, because it compelled the accused to give testimony against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pittman v. State
...as to other witnesses. Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, text 575, 26 So. 713, 722; Bryan v. State, 41 Fla. 643, 26 So. 1022; Squires v. State, 42 Fla. 251, 27 So. 864; Stewart v. State, 42 Fla. 591, 28 So. Fields v. State, 46 Fla. 84, 35 So. 185. As was said in Eldridge v. State, 27 Fla. 162,......
-
Horn v. State
...44 N. W., 1003; State v. Merriam (S. C.), 13 S. E., 328; State v. Murphy (La.), 13 So. 229; State v. Alexis (La.), id., 394; Squires v. State (Fla.), 27 So. 864; State Ekanger (N. D.), 80 N. W., 482; State v. Rozium (N. D.), id., 477; State v. Lawhorn, 88 N. C., 634; Lee v. State (Tex.), 73......
-
Cross v. State
... ... tends to incriminate him or not, and the state has the right ... on cross-examination to interrogate him as to whether he has ... been previously convicted of a criminal offense. Herndon ... v. State, 72 Fla. 108, 72 So. 833; Squires v ... State, 42 Fla. 251, 27 So. 864; Daly v. State, ... [96 Fla. 777] 67 Fla. 1, 64 So. 358; Hoskins v ... State, 70 Fla. 186, 69 So. 701. Of course, there are ... limits beyond which this character of cross-examination ... cannot be pursued. For instance, where the accused admits the ... ...
-
Williams v. United States
...88 S. W. 746, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 576; State v. Pratt, 121 Mo. 566, 26 S. W. 556; People v. Putman, 129 Cal. 258, 61 P. 961; Squiers v. State, 42 Fla. 251, 27 So. 864; Redsecker v. Wade, 69 Or. 153, 134 P. 5, 138 P. 485, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 269; State v. Reyner, 50 Or. 224, 91 P. 301; Clemmons ......